PHILADELPHIA – A federal judge has ordered litigation from a former Amtrak engineer who alleged he was terminated for reporting mismanagement and safety issues on rail line projects as stayed, pending an arbitration session.
Bryan Hager of Phoenixville first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Sept. 12 versus National Railroad Passenger Corporation (doing business as “Amtrak”), of Philadelphia.
According to this complaint, Hager was employed by Amtrak from February 2015 through February 2023. Hager claimed that after expressing concerns about the safety and mismanagement of the “Thorn Project,” which involved removing old ties and tracks and installing all new ties and tracks from Thorn to Glen on the Paoli rail line, and alleged associated violations of Amtrak’s engineering requirements, he faced job termination.
He alleged that Amtrak’s actions taken against him for reporting wrongdoing violated the Pennsylvania Whistleblower Law and further alleged that prior to his termination, he was made the scapegoat for his supervisor’s mismanagement and waste and violations of engineering requirements.
On Oct. 10, Amtrak filed a motion to compel arbitration of the plaintiff’s claims, arguing that upon the plaintiff completing online his job application, he agreed to arbitrate any outstanding legal claims against the company – and that the instant case should be stayed, pending arbitration.
UPDATE
In a memorandum opinion issued Jan. 22, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge Harvey Bartle III granted Amtrak’s motion to compel arbitration and stay the case.
“Plaintiff maintains that the language [of Section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act] prohibits pre-dispute arbitration agreements by railroad workers. He is incorrect. The plain reading of Section 1 demonstrates that the FAA does not apply in any way to employment contracts of railroad workers. While the FAA cannot be a basis to compel plaintiff to arbitrate, it says nothing to prevent plaintiff as a railroad worker from consenting to arbitrate disputes or from being bound by state law which allows for such arbitration,” Bartle said.
“Defendant argues that in consenting to the arbitration agreement, plaintiff has agreed to the application of the FAA to resolve his dispute. As noted…the Supreme Court has held that it is for the court to decide whether the parties’ contract of employment falls within the ambit of the FAA. This Court has determined as a matter of law that it does not. In any event, the arbitration agreement at best equivocates as to whether the parties have agreed to invoke the FAA as the agreement goes on to provide multiple options if the FAA does not apply.”
Bartle explained he was then guided to proceed by Pennsylvania law, which has “a long history of favoring arbitration.”
“No Pennsylvania law has been cited which forbids an arbitration agreement between an employer and an employee. Indeed, Pennsylvania has adopted the Revised Statutory Arbitration Act. This Act governs all agreements to arbitrate made on or after July 1, 2019. The employment contract here was dated thereafter. Under that Act, parties may agree to have an arbitrator decide the issues of arbitrability, as well as of validity and enforceability, including the matter of unconscionability,” Bartle stated.
“Plaintiff argues that if the FAA does not govern the arbitration agreement, the court should void the agreement as unconscionable under state law. The arbitration agreement, however, provides for the arbitrator to decide threshold questions of arbitrability as well as issues of validity, enforceability and unconscionability. It states in Paragraph 12.0 that ‘the arbitrator, and not any federal, state or local court or agency, shall have exclusive authority to resolve any dispute relating to the validity, applicability, enforceability, unconscionability or formation of this agreement.’ Consistent with Pennsylvania law, the parties have decided that the issue of unconscionability, among others, is for arbitrator and not the court. If the arbitrator rules that the arbitration agreement is unconscionable, plaintiff’s claims will then be adjudicated by the court. If the arbitrator rules otherwise, the arbitrator will then proceed to resolve plaintiff’s claims.”
Bartle ruled Amtrak met the standard to prevail on its motion to compel arbitration, and ordered a stay of the action action pursuant to Section 7321.8(f) of the Pennsylvania Revised Statutory Arbitration Act, pending resolution of the plaintiff’s claims by arbitration.
For counts of violating the Pennsylvania Whistleblower Law and the Family Medical Leave Act, the plaintiff is seeking damages including, but not limited to compensatory damages, including any and all recoverable economic and non-economic loss, back pay, front pay, liquidated damages, punitive damages, reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and such other further relief as may be just, necessary and proper.
The plaintiff is represented by Jason L. Pearlman of The Pearlman Law Firm in Bala Cynwyd, and Mark Daniel Schwartz in Bryn Mawr.
The defendants are represented by Christopher Scott Sheldon and Yuri J. Brunetti of Landman Corsi Ballaine & Ford, in Philadelphia.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:23-cv-03536
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com